CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › Why doesn't someone else direct Kubrick's Napoleon script?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why doesn't someone else direct Kubrick's Napoleon script?

post #1 of 20
8/28/10 at 1:25am
Thread Starter 
Just a thought.
Reply
post #2 of 20
8/28/10 at 1:35am
Devin's new job!
Reply
post #3 of 20
8/28/10 at 2:31am
Rights? A fear of fucking it up? I mean, Spielberg only went forward with A.I. because Stanley had already explicitly told him that Kubrick had intended him to direct it.
Reply
post #4 of 20
8/28/10 at 8:24am
Same goes for Aryan Papers.
Reply
post #5 of 20
8/28/10 at 8:37am
I'd actually like to see Chris Nolan give it a tilt.
Reply
post #6 of 20
8/28/10 at 8:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rain Dog View Post
I'd actually like to see Chris Nolan give it a tilt.
He'd only do it if he could get Michael Caine in there somewhere.
Reply
post #7 of 20
8/28/10 at 8:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Blank View Post
He'd only do it if he could get Michael Caine in there somewhere.
Would that be so bad?
Reply
post #8 of 20
8/28/10 at 9:15am
Not at all. I'm just saying it's in Nolan's contract now.

In fact, word is that Nolan's going to digitally insert Caine into Following, Memento and Insomnia.
Reply
post #9 of 20
8/28/10 at 11:09am
I care more about LUNATIC AT LARGE, which Kubrick was supposed to direct from a treatment he wrote with Jim Thompson. Edward Pressman planned to revive this four years ago:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/31/mo...=2&oref=slogin
Reply
post #10 of 20
8/28/10 at 11:32am
I think its more to the broader question of why there hasn't been the epic treatment given to Napoleon of late. It's not like the story isn't utterly fascinating.
Reply
post #11 of 20
8/28/10 at 1:09pm
Maybe the script isn't done.
Reply
post #12 of 20
8/28/10 at 1:21pm
Because it's Stanley Kubrick's vision. It would be too hard for a director to put their own stamp on it when they're constantly thinking what Stanley would've done. And Christopher Nolan, while a great director, could never do a Stanley Kubrick movie. They're completely different in style. Nolan is more akin to Ridley Scott in style.

A.I. was a different situation as Kubrick always intended Spielberg to direct it and for him to produce.
Reply
post #13 of 20
8/28/10 at 1:29pm
Much of what went into the Napolean project found its way onto film in Barry Lyndon, which I think most filmmakers who might be interested in tackling that project realize.
Reply
post #14 of 20
8/28/10 at 1:54pm
It's also probably a question of financing. Steven Spielberg couldn't get the funds to make a film about Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln! Do you think studios are going to pony up $100+ million for a sprawling epic about a Frenchman? Unless Will Smith's eyeing the role, then maybe.
Reply
post #15 of 20
8/28/10 at 2:03pm
I'd go see a Will Smith Napoleon movie.
Reply
post #16 of 20
8/28/10 at 5:22pm
Is the script available in print or online?

Without having read what Kubrick had in mind, the main problem with any Napoleon biography I would have thought is that it is almost too big. There are about four of five principal phases to the man's life, any of which could be the tenor of a film, but oddly enough none of which contain all of the elements of his life.

I'd venture (slightly hesitantly since US history is not my forte) that it's not like a Lincoln movie, where presumably you'd focus on the Civil War. Napoleon went through about three or four transitions as a historical figure: ambitious young soldier to successful general, general to politician, politician to emperor, emperor to conqueror, conqueror to hostage to apotheosis.

Sure, you could use poetic licence and deal with the missing thematic bits through dialogue, but I think you'd really struggle to make it coherent. Unless you're Oliver Stone, maybe.

That was a joke.

The obvious answer, I suppose, would be a TV mini-series done with the production values, skill and integrity of a Wire or Band of Brothers.
Reply
post #17 of 20
8/28/10 at 10:26pm
Maybe a trilogy of films - not that we live in a world where that sort of epic franchise would receive finance.

Shit I still dream of an epic trilogy showing the life of Julius Caesar and the battle for Rome upon his death - the story of young Caesar in the shadow of Marius and Sulla alone is one of the great parts of the mans life that's never made it to screen - so I'm already out here living in a dreamworld.

Hell does anyone know if Sergey Bodrov ever got financing to continue his Genghis Kahn trilogy after Mongol?

I wish we had more sweeping historical epics these days.
Reply
post #18 of 20
8/28/10 at 10:42pm
Blame Get Shorty
Reply
post #19 of 20
8/29/10 at 9:10am
The idea of a trilogy sounds great in theory, but I'm not sure there's a market for historically accurate epics. I feel almost that people need a supernatural or mythical element to be bothered to go and see it: at least in the prime commercial markets.

The French do seem to be capable and willing to make pretty large scale movies that (presumably, or am I reaching...?) make a profit - Cyrano comes to mind, as well as Mesrine. Perhaps the answer is to translate the script into French, line up a melange of Euro financing and film it in the cheaper corners of the continent. Price it for the global rather than the US market?
Reply
post #20 of 20
8/29/10 at 5:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhp1608 View Post
Is the script available in print or online?
Yes. Here. And it's very, very good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulain View Post
Much of what went into the Napolean project found its way onto film in Barry Lyndon, which I think most filmmakers who might be interested in tackling that project realize.
True, but Kubrick did have intentions of making NAPOLEON into the eighties, so he, at least, didn't think BARRY LYNDON covered all the bases.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movie Miscellany
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › Why doesn't someone else direct Kubrick's Napoleon script?